Skip to comments.5 Agents busted in my door this morning - Unlawful entry 3-30-2010 - 6:30 am
Posted on 04/05/2010 4:16:34 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom
Police trying to locate someone on a bench warrant search a woman's house without her consent. They produce no warrant - bail agent says he does not need one. She repeatedly denies them permission to enter. Some of the police enter through a back door also. The person they were looking for was not there. She said he did not live there. Not sure if he had listed that address or not.
Yeh, she knows people involved but that doesn’t excuse what happened.
The thread is linked to a youtube video. And he posted in the comment section the question: "What is the word on this? Did the police have a right to search her house. Interesting video."
How is that "purposely misleading"?
Repo people? You know that if you finance a car it belongs to the bank, right? Its not yours. And if you don’t pay, they should take it back.
It all depends if the house was used as collateral for bail and the condition of the bond if there is a default, as there was in this case...The more I look at this the more I believed we are being fooled...
As for the Deputies...that a matter for the Courts.
I’m not so certain she has a case to sue. If she signed an agreement with the bail bond company to gain access to her property, all bets are off. They may have been within their right to search her property because in this event she would have given them permission when she posted bail. Yeah, I know it looks bad, but I think it’s mostly because she’s making it look bad. The biggest mistake being committed here is a lack of professionalism. These guys are very arrogant, to say the least, but probably aren’t doing anything illegal. I withhold judgement though until I know all the facts. It’s easy to play victim to zealous cops in our society.
>>If they were bailbondsmen they can do as they please with no warrant.<<
Where in the hell did you ever get this idea? It’s a good way to get yourself shot if you are a bail-bondsmen. You have to have reasonable suspicion that your runner is in the house. That means you have to know that he’s in the house, not just hope he’s in there.
“I am armed and will shoot to protect my home”.
You do that. Obviously, many here would agree with you, however, as unfortunate as it may seem, legal entry to your home is not always by way of invitation. If the woman was believed to be harboring a fugitive who’d skipped after being charged with, oh let’s say, some disgusting crime against one of your loved ones, you might be singing a different tune and grateful for that “pack of fascistic pigs” who were going after the suspect. That’s all I’m saying.
California Penal Code
842. An arrest by a peace officer acting under a warrant is lawful even though the officer does not have the warrant in his possession at the time of the arrest, but if the person arrested so requests it, the warrant shall be shown to him as soon as practicable.
844. To make an arrest, a private person, if the offense is a felony, and in all cases a peace officer, may break open the door or window of the house in which the person to be arrested is, or in which they have reasonable grounds for believing the person to be, after having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which admittance is desired.
Deeb is stil wrong, wrong, wrong. He did not identify the person as actually being in the house. Therefore no lawful reason to enter.
Further, the bondsman nor the deputies can go searching through the house, randomly, looking for whatever.
Other bondsmen carry their paperwork with them to support their case but, still without positvely identifying the bail jumper as currently being in the house, the law is on the woman’s side.
Same goes for the deputies. No probable cause.
Back to Constitution and California Constitution which says basically the same thing.
There is not and would not be a contract giving anyone random authority to search the domain.
Amazing! They didn’t shoot either her or any dog!
If she is a normal citizen, they do not have the right to search her house without a warrant or probable cause. I don’t see where they could meet the probable cause criteria.
Even if she is on probation or parole and if the law ays the police have a right to search in that case. It seems to me that the police making a false statement that they had a warrant, when they did not should be a major violation of rights.
Roughly yes, you may have hit on it.
The video is pretty dark, but I agree that's what appeared to happen. Maybe she should lock her doors in the future for starters. Unless, of course, she was trying to set these guys up.
Her screwy comments made her look a bit wacky (or drunk, high, etc.)
Technically if the house was used by the plaintiff as collateral for the bail and the condition is not met..Guess what! its no longer her house.
My gut is telling me that this video is Bull*hit. Bail Bondman's would risk their livelihood by doing something that stupid.
My gut is telling me that this video is Bull*hit. A trained Bail Bondman wouldn't risk their livelihood by doing something that stupid.
Not my video. Not hits to be gained. If I wanted to do that I would have pointed the link to my website. But, next time I will add a bracketed note in the title.
From what I have gathered in this discussion and elsewhere they need to know the person is inside if the place is not listed as his residence.
I cannot say for sure, but it sure looks like they showed up there simply because they knew she knew him - which she obviously did.
It will be interesting to see the outcome on this one.
That's what's going to get the letter put in their files. How do these guys decide who drops the Jennings .25?
The statute says "reasonable cause to believe," not "know." Completely different standard.
You are very willing to believe the story told solely from the perspective of the person who edited the video, and who has an axe to grind, to boot. You're very trusting. I'm not.
No problemo, you had to get the nOOb razzing. LOL
Here is a link go a news article and doesn’t look good for the Dweeb or the LEO’s.
and here is another discussion on this.
I may be business logo that looks like a badge and is even worn on the right side, as opposed to the left side as a sheild over one’s heart.
It can be argued it is being used as a badge. Years ago Quick Stop had to change their logo which included the use of a stop sign as part of the design. They were sued by the state of California, I believe, and they argued that the logo incorporated elements of a tool of the law and for some reason it was unlawful to use it on the exterior of the building or as signage.
I asked the question, put it to FR for the discussion and answer. I have not formed an opinion yet, except that the police definately did not conduct themselves as they should have. That should be without question.
You don't have any information, but you're sure the police are wrong, even though you don't have an opinion about it.
The woman who made the video knows the target and he may even live at her address. She has, based on what she says, some eccentric political beliefs. "You have been served" and other statements sound familiar but I would not want to try and identify the movement.
I also believe she expected the knock on the door because the video camera was at the ready even before the first sound. Even though I use my cameras a lot, I would be hunting for the zipper to the camera bag and maybe a blank tape way too long to be effective.
The target of the search may even have been there and fled just in time.
On the other hand, everyone knew they were being video taped. It would not have compromised anything for law enforcement to have interacted with her first and been very polite, asking if she knew where the target was and asking if one, just one, of them could come in and prove to themselves he wasn't there.
Instead, they acted like arrogant thugs. Perhaps they knew this woman and were tired of her bs over many weeks or months. But still, they knew they were on camera. The whole situation would have been different for the viewer if they said "please" and "thank you." The fact that they didn't makes me even more suspicious of their character.
Now, because of their behavior, they are being investigated and their department has a public relations problem that may cause them problems with other residents. They may have been in the right, but somehow I doubt it.
I would say you have given and excellent appraisal of the situation.
The opinion I have not formed is whether it is an actionable violation of her civil rights. From the posts on here, that does not yet seem to be a settled question.
My view that the police did not conduct themselves properly is not in conflict with my view that the answer to the first question is still open. Another poster has put that point well so I won't repeat it.
To your confusion, the first statement does not negate the second. Not sure what you find so confusing but if I was not clear then you have my apologies. Hope this explanation helps and spares you the need to make any more snide replies.